Robot Wars Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 4
Quotes that aren't necessarily positive towards the people or robots involved After reading the book Gear Heads, I found out a lot about the tumultuous history of Robot Wars, not just Marc Thorpe's version, but in the UK as well. There are several quotes that I think would contribute greatly to this wiki, but they don't exactly cast a positive light on Robot Wars. I'm talking about Rex Garrod's reasons for leaving Robot Wars, teams who feel they were cheated by the producers, and commentary on the lack of preparedness. Personally, I think that this sort of thing is vital to have, but I completely understand if people are uncomfortable about doing the expos€ sort of thing. It should be a community decision, so, what are people's thoughts on this matter? RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 01:56, November 9, 2009 (UTC) :I had heard about several of those complaints, and if you list them, we'll discuss each one. Or you can just email them directly to me. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 02:40, November 9, 2009 (UTC) ::I agree with TG. We should probably discuss each one individually. I don't mind having this sort of negative information myself, but it would be good to get everyone's thoughts on them all. Christophee (talk) 15:56, November 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::I agree with you three, we should discuss each quote seperately. I think that we should have at least some of these on the wiki, because we have to show both of the sides of Robot Wars: positive and negative. 'Helloher (Death is not my phone number) 21:50, November 9, 2009 (UTC) :::Ok then. I'll have to go dig out my copy of the book to find the quotes in question, but in the meantime, here's one I found on Tornado's website: RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 16:10, November 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::Where would this quote go? Under what heading? Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:56, November 9, 2009 (UTC) :::::They were referring to Series 2 of Dutch Robot Wars, and what they were seeing as the Dutch roboteers flied in. It seems a little harsh to put this quote right at the top of the NL series 2 page; I need help figuring out where exactly it should be placed, if at all. 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 22:03, November 9, 2009 (UTC) :::::Maybe make another heading called 'Criticisms of the Wars' or something like that. Helloher (Death is not my phone number) 22:06, November 9, 2009 (UTC) Next one Comments? Toon Ganondorf (t ' 11:17, December 11, 2009 (UTC) :Was the guy from Run Away especially unhappy about the weight allowed for Drillzilla (which weighed about 160, not 200kg), the "brick" like design or just all shufflebots in general? ManUCrazy 11:34, December 11, 2009 (UTC) ::Both, I think. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 12:18, December 11, 2009 (UTC) :::To be fair, that one got resolved. I know that y'all don't follow our Yankee Doodle Battlebots, but there's an interesting story about shufflebot controvery. :::You see, the same year that Drillzilla appeared on Robot Wars, a shufflebot known as Son of Whyachi won the Battlebots Heavyweight division. At the time, there was no distincition between shuffler and walker, so it was classed as a walker, and allowed to compete with its weight advantage. Now keep in mind that the Whyachi Team was already stigmatized for being from a "rich" background; in the pit area they had all sorts of expensive devices, like a lathe mill. So, couple that with its questionable "walking" design AND the fact that it won the final match on a tight decision, and you've got yourself a public relations nightmare. In order to fight the fire, the higher-ups made that new rule about the differences between walkers and shufflebots. Son of Whyachi was now forced to compete as a superheavyweight, but had limited success. Drillzilla entered the Battlebots heavyweight competition stripped of its weapons; the new rules meant it had to lose 10 kilos to make the weight limit. 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 15:17, December 11, 2009 (UTC) ::::Still, I think this one is still useful, as it refers to Drillzilla and Extreme Warriors, rather than Whyachi and Battlebots. Especially coming from a team that lost to Drillzilla twice, it may be useful in Drillzilla's article, although certainly not at the top. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 20:30, December 11, 2009 (UTC) Qualifiers What would people think of adding a "qualifiers" page? It would strictly be a brief description of how the qualifiers worked in each series, not a list of battles or rejected robots. I'm thinking it would be classified as "behind the scenes," the same category as the Storm 2 Controversy page. I don't have good information on Series 1 or 2, but I think I could do the other series quite nicely. What are people's thoughts? 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 07:52, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :If you can do it, please go ahead and show us. Pick an easy series as an example and we'll have a look at how you go before we look at doing others. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 07:57, November 30, 2009 (UTC) ::Here's a start to what it would look like: http://robotwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:RA2/Sandbox 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 20:17, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :::It does need a section on discretionary places, as they are very important. When you get to 6/7, which feature up to 4 robots, make sure you note that any or no robots from a bout could qualify, like the entire group from Ewe 2's qualifier. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 05:57, December 1, 2009 (UTC) ::Are you sure there were cases of the winner not qualifying in Series 6 and 7? 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 14:59, December 1, 2009 (UTC) I could be mistaken, but I don't think that the first three series had qualifiers. I think the teams had to show their designs to the producers and they decided which robots would take part. That's why SHARON didn't take part anyway. Christophee (talk) 15:07, December 1, 2009 (UTC) :In Series 2 and 3, the robots had to do some sort of a slalom or obstacle course. I remebmer seeing a video of Rottweiler 2 qualifying for Series 3. I'll go looking for it later, but they basically had it demonstrate its cotrollability, and there were some crates that they could smash up to demonstrate their robot's power. :However, I do suspect tha thtere were no qualifiers in Series 1, becuase they needed every robot they could get. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 15:15, December 1, 2009 (UTC) ::The Slalom sounds right, particularly since it is in one of the video games. And you're definately right about the first wars - they still didn't manage to get the full 36 needed. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 11:51, December 5, 2009 (UTC) :The one where they smashed crates could well have been called "Collateral Damage", like in Arenas of Desturction. ManUCrazy 21:35, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Subpage I've been thinking, should we make each episode of a series a subpage? It would make perfect sense in my opinion, and the only change is changing the hyphon into a forward slash. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:18, December 5, 2009 (UTC) :Have a look at what I've done with the Series 7 Annihilator, and see if you like it. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 00:55, December 6, 2009 (UTC) ::I have no objections to the idea, so if you're willing to go through moving all the page names then go ahead. Christophee (talk) 01:33, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :::I will wait for other input, but I would certainly appreciate a volunteer or two to help me make the change - it'll be a huge job. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 01:47, December 6, 2009 (UTC) ::::Yeah, fair enough, I just meant that you have my vote. I'm sure you'll get people to help you if they agree to the change. I'll be willing to help if you need me to though. We could split up the different series between us if necessary. Christophee (talk) 01:52, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :::::Thanks, yes, I did understand, and I had planned to divide up the series. I'll take 5, 7 and Extreme 2 when the time comes. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 01:57, December 6, 2009 (UTC) ::::::It doesn't look like anybody has anything else to add. That or they haven't seen the discussion yet. Christophee (talk) 16:37, December 7, 2009 (UTC) :::::::I'll do something when I have the time to. 'Helloher (Death is not my phone number) 17:04, December 7, 2009 (UTC) :::::::Unfortunately, I'm leaving in the next few hours and I won't be able to help until around Friday. Sorry. If you want to go ahead, that's great, but if you want to wait, I'm fine with that. I suggest doing Series 1 first, and make use of the What Links Here special pages to make sure you get all the links changed. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 18:29, December 7, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::I've done Series 1-3 and Extreme 1. Does anybody want to call Series 4 and 6 or should I just do those as well? Christophee (talk) 16:00, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Article Summaries This refers to the introductory section of an article. There are two parts of this discussion. I'll start with the first. Some of our most well-known and famous robots are definately lacking in information. The article's robot summary was copied from that old ''Notable Robots article we had once upon a time, and we all know how substandard that was. I would appreciate it if people joined me in expanding these, by watching Youtube introductions of those robots, or adding things from Did You Know to articles. You can see what I've done for some robots like Flipper recently, it goes to show how easy it is to make a decent article out of a very unnoticed robot - well think of how easy it will be for a robot like Scutter's Revenge, Hypno-Disc, Typhoon 2, G.B.H and Mousetrap, just some of the significant robots I feel are really lacking in information. My second point is that the episode articles are void of other information. In the Featured article for the Fifth Wars, Semi-Final 1, I added in that it was the first mainstream loss of Chaos 2 and the first appearance of Razer in the Semi-finals. Things like this should be added to episode articles to make them less dry. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:00, December 13, 2009 (UTC) Poll Is there any way that we can archive the old polls? I think it would be interesting to look through the results of all the old ones. Christophee (talk) 15:58, December 16, 2009 (UTC) :At best, I suppose we could printscreen them and store the images. That's about the best I can think of besides doing the polls again on a different page. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:47, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Ask Aaron situatuon Q: I resent your accusation that we are not crediting our research, actually, as you've referenced our research numerous times. I think referring to each other is very important for us both, and we haven't begun to credit anyone regarding content. Also, there have only been three questions from us that I know of. A: My accusation stands and is supported by your admission that your site is not crediting anyone regarding content. All information from your site that we use here is properly referenced by name and link, but there is no link to or mention of 'Ask Aaron' anywhere on your site. If you ask us to do specific research for use on a commercially supported website, we expect to be properly credited. This is common etiquette. To whomever is responsible for this, it ends now. Do not respond to Mark, it will only make us look bad. If this escalates any further, it could cause a staggering amount of negative PR for us. I admit, I probably am partially at fault for putting that "Ask Aaron" thing on my userpage, but it is gone now, and not to be resurrected. I respect if the person in question wishes to remain anonymous, it doesn't matter who it was. In conclusion, it would probably be for the best if we didn't mention the Wiki in our questions to Aaron. '''RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 20:13, December 18, 2009 (UTC) :I agree. However, I think listing their names in Quotes and whatnot would pass for crediting, would it not? Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:22, December 18, 2009 (UTC) ::I don't understand what this is about. Did this appear on Mark's site? How do we know it's related to the wiki? Christophee (talk) 00:03, December 19, 2009 (UTC) :::Nor do I, and I thought that when stuff is quoted from this site, we either put "Ask Aaron website" or "Aaron Joerger", so I don't know what he is on about. Maybe he means using "citations" like on Wikipedia (the little numbers in the middle of articles, with links at the bottom)? ManUCrazy 00:10, December 19, 2009 (UTC) ::::I suppose he does kind of have a point. Maybe we should do the references thing that ManUCrazy mentioned. It would take a long time to reference everything we've got from other sites though. Christophee (talk) 00:20, December 19, 2009 (UTC) :::::It would appear someone has searched the wiki and asked questions - I noticed my unanswered question on File:Rippa Raptor.jpg was the question asked. The thing is, a lot of our research comes from shut down websites, or original research, or videos. I think we'll just ignore him. As long as we continue to put the Ask Aaron website in the quotes box, it will suffice. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 03:35, December 19, 2009 (UTC) :::::::I agree, that will suffice. I only posted this in hopes that I could preventing it from escalating any further. 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 03:55, December 19, 2009 (UTC)